PDA

View Full Version : Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma


September 12th 06, 03:28 PM
Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma

CHICAGO, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Holding your breath while weightlifting
causes temporary increases in eye pressure that could raise the risk of
developing one form of glaucoma, according to a study published on
Monday.

Researchers at the Catholic University of Brasilia in Brazil said they
reached the conclusion with a test of 30 men aged 18 to 40 whose
intraocular (in the eye) pressure was measured while they were bench
pressing.

None had glaucoma; but the study, published in the September issue of
Archives of Ophthalmology, found that eye pressure increased during the
breath-holding done as part of the training.

It said normal-tension glaucoma is more common in individuals who are
subjected to frequent changes in eye pressure. That variety of glaucoma
is one where the eye disease develops even though eye pressure when
measured in routine checks appears to be normal.

It is also more common among people who play high-resistance wind
instruments or those with asthma or intestinal or urinary tract
obstructions that cause them to strain in a way that increases eye
pressure.

"Prolonged weightlifting could be a potential risk factor for the
development or progression of glaucoma. Intermittent intraocular
pressure increases during weightlifting should be suspected in patients
with normal-tension glaucoma who perform such exercises," the authors
concluded.

The increased eye pressure that marks glaucoma damages the optic nerve
leading to sight loss and possible blindness.

SOURCES: Vieira, G. Archives of Ophthalmology, September 2006; vol 124:
pp 1251-1254. News release, JAMA/Archives.

Jim Chinnis
September 12th 06, 03:55 PM
wrote in part:

>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma

Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

geek_girl
September 12th 06, 04:15 PM
Jim Chinnis wrote:
> wrote in part:
>
> >Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>
> Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Of course it's nonsense. If you make a habit of holding your breath
when you lift, your brain will 'splode from an aneurysm long before you
ever have a chance to get glaucoma.

Lee Michaels
September 12th 06, 04:19 PM
"geek_girl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> wrote in part:
>>
>> >Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>>
>> Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
>> --
>> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
>
> Of course it's nonsense. If you make a habit of holding your breath
> when you lift, your brain will 'splode from an aneurysm long before you
> ever have a chance to get glaucoma.
>

Reminds me of the punchline of that old joke.

Can I just do it until I need glasses?

Jim
September 12th 06, 04:49 PM
Jim Chinnis > wrote in
:

> wrote in part:
>
>>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>
> Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.

Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to their
own recreation. The concept seems reasonable enough to me, since the "eye-
popping" effect is easy to feel. Weightlifting (vs. "hard labor" or body-
weight exercises) may not be natural for the human system. Farm work used
to keep the populace in shape and it rarely involved the peak stresses of
weight training.

The study's emphasis is that people predisposed to glaucoma could increase
their risk. They cite a known correlation between "normal-tension
glaucoma" and the playing of "high-resistance" wind instruments. It all
stands to reason.

They need to follow up and track the incidence of glaucoma among the
weightlifting population. If the study seems superficial on news sites,
here are the details:

http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/124/9/1251

Jim

geek_girl
September 12th 06, 05:11 PM
Jim wrote:
> Jim Chinnis > wrote in
> :
>
> > wrote in part:
> >
> >>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
> >
> > Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
>
> Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to their
> own recreation.

It's not at all upsetting, because at this point it seems like no more
than speculation. In any case, most of us (us being the longtime
lifters in mfw) have accepted that there are risks to heavy lifting,
but we feel that the benefits outweigh the risks.

> The concept seems reasonable enough to me, since the "eye-
> popping" effect is easy to feel. Weightlifting (vs. "hard labor" or body-
> weight exercises) may not be natural for the human system. Farm work used
> to keep the populace in shape and it rarely involved the peak stresses of
> weight training.

Umm. What? Have you ever actually done any manual labor? Or even seen
it occur? If anything, lifting real world objects is *more* difficult
than lifting gym weights. They tend to be more awkward and harder to
grip than dumbbells or barbells. Furthermore, most of us only lift for
an hour or so at a time. Laborers lift things all day long.

As for what's "natural" for the human body, there's quite a bit of
evidence that our prehistoric ancestors were, in general, far stronger
than modern humans. Higher bone density indicates higher loading, i.e.
they lifted heavy things on a regular basis.

geek_girl
September 12th 06, 05:13 PM
Jim wrote:
> Jim Chinnis > wrote in
> :
>
> > wrote in part:
> >
> >>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
> >
> > Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
>
> Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to their
> own recreation.

It's not at all upsetting, because at this point it seems like no more
than speculation. In any case, most of us (us being the longtime
lifters in mfw) have accepted that there are risks to heavy lifting,
but we feel that the benefits outweigh the risks.

> The concept seems reasonable enough to me, since the "eye-
> popping" effect is easy to feel. Weightlifting (vs. "hard labor" or body-
> weight exercises) may not be natural for the human system. Farm work used
> to keep the populace in shape and it rarely involved the peak stresses of
> weight training.

Umm. What? Have you ever actually done any manual labor? Or even seen
it occur? If anything, lifting real world objects is *more* difficult
than lifting gym weights. They tend to be more awkward and harder to
grip than dumbbells or barbells. Furthermore, most of us only lift for
an hour or so at a time. Laborers lift things all day long.

As for what's "natural" for the human body, there's quite a bit of
evidence that our prehistoric ancestors were, in general, far stronger
than modern humans. Higher bone density indicates higher loading, i.e.
they lifted heavy things on a regular basis.

Jim
September 12th 06, 05:41 PM
"geek_girl" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Jim wrote:
>> Jim Chinnis > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > wrote in part:
>> >
>> >>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>> >
>> > Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
>>
>> Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to
>> their own recreation.
>
> It's not at all upsetting, because at this point it seems like no more
> than speculation. In any case, most of us (us being the longtime
> lifters in mfw) have accepted that there are risks to heavy lifting,
> but we feel that the benefits outweigh the risks.

And people would never deny anthropogenic global warming just because they
like big cars, or cancer risks just because they like smoking? That's all
I'm getting at. Several people denounced the study right off the bat
without even reading it.

>> The concept seems reasonable enough to me, since the "eye-
>> popping" effect is easy to feel. Weightlifting (vs. "hard labor" or
>> body- weight exercises) may not be natural for the human system. Farm
>> work used to keep the populace in shape and it rarely involved the
>> peak stresses of weight training.
>
> Umm. What? Have you ever actually done any manual labor? Or even seen
> it occur? If anything, lifting real world objects is *more* difficult
> than lifting gym weights. They tend to be more awkward and harder to
> grip than dumbbells or barbells. Furthermore, most of us only lift for
> an hour or so at a time. Laborers lift things all day long.

I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few reps
in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps. Heavy work
tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a specific muscle
group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it could certainly be
hard on the eyes too.

> As for what's "natural" for the human body, there's quite a bit of
> evidence that our prehistoric ancestors were, in general, far stronger
> than modern humans. Higher bone density indicates higher loading, i.e.
> they lifted heavy things on a regular basis.

Please read the actual study I linked to. It's got graphs and a lot more
info than the news items. They have documented more glaucoma among players
of certain wind instruments. They just need to prove it with a deliberate
survey of weightlifters. I doubt it's too much of a concern for the less
extreme lifters.

Jim

JMW
September 12th 06, 05:59 PM
Jim > wrote:

>Jim Chinnis > wrote:
>
>> wrote in part:
>>
>>>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>>
>> Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
>
>Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to their
>own recreation. The concept seems reasonable enough to me, since the "eye-
>popping" effect is easy to feel. Weightlifting (vs. "hard labor" or body-
>weight exercises) may not be natural for the human system. Farm work used
>to keep the populace in shape and it rarely involved the peak stresses of
>weight training.
>
>The study's emphasis is that people predisposed to glaucoma could increase
>their risk. They cite a known correlation between "normal-tension
>glaucoma" and the playing of "high-resistance" wind instruments. It all
>stands to reason.
>
>They need to follow up and track the incidence of glaucoma among the
>weightlifting population. If the study seems superficial on news sites,
>here are the details:
>
>http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/124/9/1251

And you'll probably get more eye-popping Valsalvic pressure from a
good case of constipation.

BTW, if you actually think that farm work doesn't involve Valsalva
maneuvers in the heavy lifting, then you've never done heavy manual
labor.

geek_girl
September 12th 06, 08:05 PM
Jim wrote:
> "geek_girl" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> > Jim wrote:
> >> Jim Chinnis > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > wrote in part:
> >> >
> >> >>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
> >> >
> >> > Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
> >>
> >> Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to
> >> their own recreation.
> >
> > It's not at all upsetting, because at this point it seems like no more
> > than speculation. In any case, most of us (us being the longtime
> > lifters in mfw) have accepted that there are risks to heavy lifting,
> > but we feel that the benefits outweigh the risks.
>
> And people would never deny anthropogenic global warming just because they
> like big cars, or cancer risks just because they like smoking? That's all
> I'm getting at. Several people denounced the study right off the bat
> without even reading it.

How do you know they didn't read it?

>
> >> The concept seems reasonable enough to me, since the "eye-
> >> popping" effect is easy to feel. Weightlifting (vs. "hard labor" or
> >> body- weight exercises) may not be natural for the human system. Farm
> >> work used to keep the populace in shape and it rarely involved the
> >> peak stresses of weight training.
> >
> > Umm. What? Have you ever actually done any manual labor? Or even seen
> > it occur? If anything, lifting real world objects is *more* difficult
> > than lifting gym weights. They tend to be more awkward and harder to
> > grip than dumbbells or barbells. Furthermore, most of us only lift for
> > an hour or so at a time. Laborers lift things all day long.
>
> I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
> _extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few reps
> in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.

That's depends on what you're moving, and how many people are carrying
it, and how strong you and they are, doesn't it? If you're lifting near
or at your max, regardless of whether you're lifting a barbell or a
sleeper sofa, you're likely to be doing a Valsalva. Perhaps you and
your coworkers were very strong, and/or there were a lot of you.

> Heavy work
> tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a specific muscle
> group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it could certainly be
> hard on the eyes too.

Well, this is assuming that heavy lifting really is "hard on the eyes".
In either case, does this mean you're withdrawing your apparent blanket
assertion that "hard labor" isn't the same as lifting weights?

>
> > As for what's "natural" for the human body, there's quite a bit of
> > evidence that our prehistoric ancestors were, in general, far stronger
> > than modern humans. Higher bone density indicates higher loading, i.e.
> > they lifted heavy things on a regular basis.
>
> Please read the actual study I linked to. It's got graphs and a lot more
> info than the news items. They have documented more glaucoma among players
> of certain wind instruments. They just need to prove it with a deliberate
> survey of weightlifters. I doubt it's too much of a concern for the less
> extreme lifters.

I was simply addressing your statement that the stresses of lifting
weights are not "natural". It's likely that although lifting weights is
contrived, the stresses are quite similar to those under which we
evolved. Who knows, maybe it's "natural" for people to eventually
develop glaucoma.

geek_girl
September 12th 06, 08:11 PM
JMW wrote:
> Jim > wrote:
>
> >Jim Chinnis > wrote:
> >
> >> wrote in part:
> >>
> >>>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
> >>
> >> Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
> >
> >Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to their
> >own recreation. The concept seems reasonable enough to me, since the "eye-
> >popping" effect is easy to feel. Weightlifting (vs. "hard labor" or body-
> >weight exercises) may not be natural for the human system. Farm work used
> >to keep the populace in shape and it rarely involved the peak stresses of
> >weight training.
> >
> >The study's emphasis is that people predisposed to glaucoma could increase
> >their risk. They cite a known correlation between "normal-tension
> >glaucoma" and the playing of "high-resistance" wind instruments. It all
> >stands to reason.
> >
> >They need to follow up and track the incidence of glaucoma among the
> >weightlifting population. If the study seems superficial on news sites,
> >here are the details:
> >
> >http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/124/9/1251
>
> And you'll probably get more eye-popping Valsalvic pressure from a
> good case of constipation.
>
> BTW, if you actually think that farm work doesn't involve Valsalva
> maneuvers in the heavy lifting, then you've never done heavy manual
> labor.

Also, farm work isn't the only thing that "used to keep the populace in
shape". Not everyone was a farmer, and there were (and still are, to
some degree) a lot of jobs involving heavy lifting.

Does anyone else here remember Cory Everson and Cameo Kneuer as the
blacksmith sisters on Brisco County, Jr?

David Cohen
September 12th 06, 08:30 PM
"geek_girl" > wrote
>
> Does anyone else here remember Cory Everson and Cameo Kneuer as the
> blacksmith sisters on Brisco County, Jr?

Yes.

And the scantily leather clad Cory Everson as the blacksmith chick in
"Hercules" :)

David

AllEmailDeletedImmediately
September 12th 06, 08:34 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>
> CHICAGO, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Holding your breath while weightlifting
> causes temporary increases in eye pressure that could raise the risk of
> developing one form of glaucoma, according to a study published on
> Monday.

holding your breath while weightlifting can cause a stroke. the proper
way to breathe is to exhale on the exertion and inhale on the recovery:
bench press by exhaling as you lift the weight and inhaling as you lower
it.

geek_girl
September 12th 06, 10:12 PM
AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
> >
> > CHICAGO, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Holding your breath while weightlifting
> > causes temporary increases in eye pressure that could raise the risk of
> > developing one form of glaucoma, according to a study published on
> > Monday.
>
> holding your breath while weightlifting can cause a stroke.

References please.

Scott Seidman
September 12th 06, 10:27 PM
"geek_girl" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>> >
>> > CHICAGO, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Holding your breath while
>> > weightlifting causes temporary increases in eye pressure that could
>> > raise the risk of developing one form of glaucoma, according to a
>> > study published on Monday.
>>
>> holding your breath while weightlifting can cause a stroke.
>
> References please.
>
>


I'd imagine that it would have the same types of risks as the Valsalva
maneuver.

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/valsalva_maneuver.jsp

"The patient may feel dizzy or faint during the procedure, but serious
consequences are rare. There is a risk that the Valsalva maneuver can cause
blood clots to detach, bleeding, and abnormal rhythms originating in the
ventricle. It can also cause cardiac arrest. Consequently, the procedure is
usually performed in a setting where emergency equipment is accessible."

Note the "rare" part.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

David Cohen
September 12th 06, 10:29 PM
"geek_girl" > wrote
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>> >
>> > CHICAGO, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Holding your breath while weightlifting
>> > causes temporary increases in eye pressure that could raise the risk of
>> > developing one form of glaucoma, according to a study published on
>> > Monday.
>>
>> holding your breath while weightlifting can cause a stroke.
>
> References please.

International Journal of I Pulled It Out My Ass, Volume 24:7, page 666.

HTH.

BIDID.

David

The Real Bev
September 12th 06, 11:45 PM
geek_girl wrote:

> Jim wrote:
>> Jim Chinnis > wrote:
>> > wrote in part:
>> >
>> >>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>> >
>> > Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
>>
>> Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to their
>> own recreation.
>
> It's not at all upsetting, because at this point it seems like no more
> than speculation. In any case, most of us (us being the longtime
> lifters in mfw) have accepted that there are risks to heavy lifting,
> but we feel that the benefits outweigh the risks.

I was taught to breathe out while lifting and in while dropping. Nobody
ever mentioned holding one's breath except to say "Don't do it."

--
Cheers, Bev
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"I read about this syndrome called hypochondria in a
magazine. I think I've got it." -- DA

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 12:30 AM
Scott Seidman wrote:
> "geek_girl" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> >
> > AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
> >> >
> >> > CHICAGO, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Holding your breath while
> >> > weightlifting causes temporary increases in eye pressure that could
> >> > raise the risk of developing one form of glaucoma, according to a
> >> > study published on Monday.
> >>
> >> holding your breath while weightlifting can cause a stroke.
> >
> > References please.
> >
> >
>
>
> I'd imagine that it would have the same types of risks as the Valsalva
> maneuver.
>
> http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/valsalva_maneuver.jsp
>
> "The patient may feel dizzy or faint during the procedure, but serious
> consequences are rare. There is a risk that the Valsalva maneuver can cause
> blood clots to detach, bleeding, and abnormal rhythms originating in the
> ventricle. It can also cause cardiac arrest. Consequently, the procedure is
> usually performed in a setting where emergency equipment is accessible."
>
> Note the "rare" part.
>

I don't see "stroke" anywhere in that list. Although I suppose if a
blood clot detached, it could cause a stroke. Of course that could only
happen if one had a blood clot to begin with.

When you hold your breath while lifting, that *is* a Valsalva, although
the page you linked to says it's held for 30 seconds when it's done as
a medical test. None of my reps ever take that long. I can definitely
see how holding a Valsalva for 30 seconds could cause dizziness or
faintness, and I have no intention of doing it.

Yes, I've noted the "rare" part. :)

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 12:35 AM
The Real Bev wrote:
> geek_girl wrote:
>
> > Jim wrote:
> >> Jim Chinnis > wrote:
> >> > wrote in part:
> >> >
> >> >>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
> >> >
> >> > Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
> >>
> >> Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to their
> >> own recreation.
> >
> > It's not at all upsetting, because at this point it seems like no more
> > than speculation. In any case, most of us (us being the longtime
> > lifters in mfw) have accepted that there are risks to heavy lifting,
> > but we feel that the benefits outweigh the risks.
>
> I was taught to breathe out while lifting and in while dropping. Nobody
> ever mentioned holding one's breath except to say "Don't do it."
>

Well, those same people will probably also tell you that full squats
are bad for your knees. But really, whether or not you should hold your
breath depends on how heavy the weight is for you, which exercise
you're doing, and perhaps how mangled your spine already is. But
holding your breath, when done properly, can help stabilize your spine.
For me, it's necessary, and I do it even when lifting well below max.

September 13th 06, 02:28 AM
wrote:
> It is also more common among people who play high-resistance wind
> instruments or those with asthma or intestinal or urinary tract
> obstructions that cause them to strain in a way that increases eye
> pressure.

Great. I squat heavy AND I play trumpet.

Next, too much protein is gonna give me kidney stones and then I'm
REALLY ****ed... :-)

At least there's clenbuterol for the asthma.


Stu

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 02:50 AM
Shute wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2006 12:11:46 -0700, "geek_girl" >
> wrote:
>
> >Also, farm work isn't the only thing that "used to keep the populace in
> >shape". Not everyone was a farmer, and there were (and still are, to
> >some degree) a lot of jobs involving heavy lifting.
>
> Try swinging around an ancient battle sword. Or firing a long bow at
> the same rate required in battle. Or even cutting wood to heat the
> house. Or starting a crank start car. Or mowing a lawn with a
> powerless cutter. Or pushing a wheelbarrow round the yard.
>

Try hauling landscaping rocks and decomposed granite around the yard
*without* a wheelbarrow. :)

> When I think about how much my job sucks. I think about how much hard
> labor jobs sucked even worse. At least my body doesn't go home
> hurting from head to toe.

Me too!

Jim
September 13th 06, 03:13 AM
"geek_girl" > wrote in
ps.com:

>> And people would never deny anthropogenic global warming just because
>> they like big cars, or cancer risks just because they like smoking?
>> That's all I'm getting at. Several people denounced the study right
>> off the bat without even reading it.
>
> How do you know they didn't read it?

Knowledge of human nature and those initial brief replies - see first
posts. It looks like I was the first one who checked out the original
article. A lot of people won't even read a report because they're
bombarded with so much noise. The "dueling studies" phenomenon doesn't
mean each one isn't worth a look.

> Well, this is assuming that heavy lifting really is "hard on the
> eyes". In either case, does this mean you're withdrawing your apparent
> blanket assertion that "hard labor" isn't the same as lifting weights?

There is a certain concentrated stress on the body that I personally have
only experienced with weights. We could debate the fine points endlessly
I suppose.

> I was simply addressing your statement that the stresses of lifting
> weights are not "natural". It's likely that although lifting weights
> is contrived, the stresses are quite similar to those under which we
> evolved. Who knows, maybe it's "natural" for people to eventually
> develop glaucoma.

If you can name a specific labor activity that matches the concentrated
eye-popping feel of final reps, please do! I helped move pianos and even
vending machines up/down flights of stairs. It was mostly a challenge to
protect the lower back. I never felt like my eyes were bulging. Again,
I'm referring to heavy weights, not "toning" exercises where you don't
burn out on the last rep.

Jim

Jim
September 13th 06, 03:19 AM
Shute > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>
>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>
> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
> really give you a good workout.

Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
etc.)

When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.

Jim

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 03:42 AM
Jim wrote:
> "geek_girl" > wrote in
> ps.com:
>
> >> And people would never deny anthropogenic global warming just because
> >> they like big cars, or cancer risks just because they like smoking?
> >> That's all I'm getting at. Several people denounced the study right
> >> off the bat without even reading it.
> >
> > How do you know they didn't read it?
>
> Knowledge of human nature and those initial brief replies - see first
> posts. It looks like I was the first one who checked out the original
> article.

I see. Just because the replies were brief, they didn't read the
studies?

> A lot of people won't even read a report because they're
> bombarded with so much noise. The "dueling studies" phenomenon doesn't
> mean each one isn't worth a look.

Oh my, aren't you condescending?

>
> > Well, this is assuming that heavy lifting really is "hard on the
> > eyes". In either case, does this mean you're withdrawing your apparent
> > blanket assertion that "hard labor" isn't the same as lifting weights?
>
> There is a certain concentrated stress on the body that I personally have
> only experienced with weights. We could debate the fine points endlessly
> I suppose.

It's not a "fine point". Lifting heavy things is lifting heavy things.

>
> > I was simply addressing your statement that the stresses of lifting
> > weights are not "natural". It's likely that although lifting weights
> > is contrived, the stresses are quite similar to those under which we
> > evolved. Who knows, maybe it's "natural" for people to eventually
> > develop glaucoma.
>
> If you can name a specific labor activity that matches the concentrated
> eye-popping feel of final reps, please do!

How about lifting huge hunks of iron? Have you ever been to a carnival?
Do you know how the rides get put together and taken apart?

> I helped move pianos and even
> vending machines up/down flights of stairs.

You *helped* move them. You didn't move them single-handedly, did you?

> It was mostly a challenge to
> protect the lower back. I never felt like my eyes were bulging. Again,
> I'm referring to heavy weights, not "toning" exercises where you don't
> burn out on the last rep.

Are you ASSuming that because I'm a girl, "toning" must be my only
frame of reference? If so, you're quite mistaken.

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 03:45 AM
Jim wrote:
> Shute > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
> >
> >>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
> >>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
> >>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
> >>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
> >>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
> >>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
> >
> > Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
> > Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
> > Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
> > really give you a good workout.
>
> Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
> stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
> like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
> etc.)
>
> When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
> attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
> groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.

Oh, I see what the problem is. You think "lifting weights" is benching.
How cute.

Curt James
September 13th 06, 04:25 AM
wrote:
> Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
>
> CHICAGO, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Holding your breath while weightlifting
> causes temporary increases in eye pressure that could raise the risk of
> developing one form of glaucoma, according to a study published on
> Monday. <snip>

Screw JAMA.

Getting out of bed in the a.m. could raise the risk of death, too, but
I still gotta get to work. Almost ate the rearend of an Explorer that
looked like it was going to fishtail into the rearend of a Celica that
stopped short during the morning commute. Guess I'da been safer walking
to school.

--
Curt

JMW
September 13th 06, 04:31 AM
Jim > wrote:

>Shute > wrote in
:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>>
>>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>>
>> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
>> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
>> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
>> really give you a good workout.
>
>Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
>stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
>like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
>etc.)
>
>When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
>attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
>groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.

Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 04:50 AM
JMW wrote:
> Jim > wrote:
>
> >Shute > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
> >>
> >>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
> >>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
> >>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
> >>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
> >>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
> >>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
> >>
> >> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
> >> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
> >> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
> >> really give you a good workout.
> >
> >Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
> >stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
> >like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
> >etc.)
> >
> >When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
> >attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
> >groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
>
> Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
> OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.

It all makes perfect sense now, doesn't it? Maybe if he'd stop bouncing
the bar off his chest his eyes would stop bugging out.

Lee Michaels
September 13th 06, 05:15 AM
"geek_girl" wrote
>
> JMW wrote:
>> Jim > wrote:
>>
>> >Shute > wrote in
>> :
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>> >>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>> >>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>> >>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>> >>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>> >>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>> >>
>> >> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
>> >> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
>> >> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
>> >> really give you a good workout.
>> >
>> >Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
>> >stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
>> >like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
>> >etc.)
>> >
>> >When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific,
>> >targeted
>> >attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many
>> >muscle
>> >groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
>>
>> Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
>> OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.
>
> It all makes perfect sense now, doesn't it? Maybe if he'd stop bouncing
> the bar off his chest his eyes would stop bugging out.
>
Maybe the reason his eyes keep bugging out has to do with being an internet
dumbass. I understand this condition can be quite stressful.

Charles
September 13th 06, 08:47 AM
On 12 Sep 2006 19:42:34 -0700, "geek_girl" >
wrote:

>Jim wrote:
>> "geek_girl" > wrote in
>> ps.com:
>>
>> >> And people would never deny anthropogenic global warming just because
>> >> they like big cars, or cancer risks just because they like smoking?
>> >> That's all I'm getting at. Several people denounced the study right
>> >> off the bat without even reading it.
>> >
>> > How do you know they didn't read it?
>>
>> Knowledge of human nature and those initial brief replies - see first
>> posts. It looks like I was the first one who checked out the original
>> article.
>
>I see. Just because the replies were brief, they didn't read the
>studies?
>
>> A lot of people won't even read a report because they're
>> bombarded with so much noise. The "dueling studies" phenomenon doesn't
>> mean each one isn't worth a look.
>
>Oh my, aren't you condescending?
>
>>
>> > Well, this is assuming that heavy lifting really is "hard on the
>> > eyes". In either case, does this mean you're withdrawing your apparent
>> > blanket assertion that "hard labor" isn't the same as lifting weights?
>>
>> There is a certain concentrated stress on the body that I personally have
>> only experienced with weights. We could debate the fine points endlessly
>> I suppose.
>
>It's not a "fine point". Lifting heavy things is lifting heavy things.
>
>>
>> > I was simply addressing your statement that the stresses of lifting
>> > weights are not "natural". It's likely that although lifting weights
>> > is contrived, the stresses are quite similar to those under which we
>> > evolved. Who knows, maybe it's "natural" for people to eventually
>> > develop glaucoma.
>>
>> If you can name a specific labor activity that matches the concentrated
>> eye-popping feel of final reps, please do!
>
>How about lifting huge hunks of iron? Have you ever been to a carnival?
>Do you know how the rides get put together and taken apart?
>
>> I helped move pianos and even
>> vending machines up/down flights of stairs.
>
>You *helped* move them. You didn't move them single-handedly, did you?
>
>> It was mostly a challenge to
>> protect the lower back. I never felt like my eyes were bulging. Again,
>> I'm referring to heavy weights, not "toning" exercises where you don't
>> burn out on the last rep.
>
>Are you ASSuming that because I'm a girl, "toning" must be my only
>frame of reference? If so, you're quite mistaken.

The tone of this thread is deteriorating!

David
September 13th 06, 09:56 AM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Sep 2006 19:42:34 -0700, "geek_girl" >
> wrote:
>
>>Jim wrote:
>>> "geek_girl" > wrote in
>>> ps.com:
>>>
>>> >> And people would never deny anthropogenic global warming just because
>>> >> they like big cars, or cancer risks just because they like smoking?
>>> >> That's all I'm getting at. Several people denounced the study right
>>> >> off the bat without even reading it.
>>> >
>>> > How do you know they didn't read it?
>>>
>>> Knowledge of human nature and those initial brief replies - see first
>>> posts. It looks like I was the first one who checked out the original
>>> article.
>>
>>I see. Just because the replies were brief, they didn't read the
>>studies?
>>
>>> A lot of people won't even read a report because they're
>>> bombarded with so much noise. The "dueling studies" phenomenon doesn't
>>> mean each one isn't worth a look.
>>
>>Oh my, aren't you condescending?
>>
>>>
>>> > Well, this is assuming that heavy lifting really is "hard on the
>>> > eyes". In either case, does this mean you're withdrawing your apparent
>>> > blanket assertion that "hard labor" isn't the same as lifting weights?
>>>
>>> There is a certain concentrated stress on the body that I personally
>>> have
>>> only experienced with weights. We could debate the fine points endlessly
>>> I suppose.
>>
>>It's not a "fine point". Lifting heavy things is lifting heavy things.
>>
>>>
>>> > I was simply addressing your statement that the stresses of lifting
>>> > weights are not "natural". It's likely that although lifting weights
>>> > is contrived, the stresses are quite similar to those under which we
>>> > evolved. Who knows, maybe it's "natural" for people to eventually
>>> > develop glaucoma.
>>>
>>> If you can name a specific labor activity that matches the concentrated
>>> eye-popping feel of final reps, please do!
>>
>>How about lifting huge hunks of iron? Have you ever been to a carnival?
>>Do you know how the rides get put together and taken apart?
>>
>>> I helped move pianos and even
>>> vending machines up/down flights of stairs.
>>
>>You *helped* move them. You didn't move them single-handedly, did you?
>>
>>> It was mostly a challenge to
>>> protect the lower back. I never felt like my eyes were bulging. Again,
>>> I'm referring to heavy weights, not "toning" exercises where you don't
>>> burn out on the last rep.
>>
>>Are you ASSuming that because I'm a girl, "toning" must be my only
>>frame of reference? If so, you're quite mistaken.
>
> The tone of this thread is deteriorating!

Not only is it deteriorating, it doesn't make a thread of sense

Charles
September 13th 06, 10:01 AM
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:56:39 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>> On 12 Sep 2006 19:42:34 -0700, "geek_girl" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Jim wrote:
>>>> "geek_girl" > wrote in
>>>> ps.com:
>>>>
>>>> >> And people would never deny anthropogenic global warming just because
>>>> >> they like big cars, or cancer risks just because they like smoking?
>>>> >> That's all I'm getting at. Several people denounced the study right
>>>> >> off the bat without even reading it.
>>>> >
>>>> > How do you know they didn't read it?
>>>>
>>>> Knowledge of human nature and those initial brief replies - see first
>>>> posts. It looks like I was the first one who checked out the original
>>>> article.
>>>
>>>I see. Just because the replies were brief, they didn't read the
>>>studies?
>>>
>>>> A lot of people won't even read a report because they're
>>>> bombarded with so much noise. The "dueling studies" phenomenon doesn't
>>>> mean each one isn't worth a look.
>>>
>>>Oh my, aren't you condescending?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Well, this is assuming that heavy lifting really is "hard on the
>>>> > eyes". In either case, does this mean you're withdrawing your apparent
>>>> > blanket assertion that "hard labor" isn't the same as lifting weights?
>>>>
>>>> There is a certain concentrated stress on the body that I personally
>>>> have
>>>> only experienced with weights. We could debate the fine points endlessly
>>>> I suppose.
>>>
>>>It's not a "fine point". Lifting heavy things is lifting heavy things.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I was simply addressing your statement that the stresses of lifting
>>>> > weights are not "natural". It's likely that although lifting weights
>>>> > is contrived, the stresses are quite similar to those under which we
>>>> > evolved. Who knows, maybe it's "natural" for people to eventually
>>>> > develop glaucoma.
>>>>
>>>> If you can name a specific labor activity that matches the concentrated
>>>> eye-popping feel of final reps, please do!
>>>
>>>How about lifting huge hunks of iron? Have you ever been to a carnival?
>>>Do you know how the rides get put together and taken apart?
>>>
>>>> I helped move pianos and even
>>>> vending machines up/down flights of stairs.
>>>
>>>You *helped* move them. You didn't move them single-handedly, did you?
>>>
>>>> It was mostly a challenge to
>>>> protect the lower back. I never felt like my eyes were bulging. Again,
>>>> I'm referring to heavy weights, not "toning" exercises where you don't
>>>> burn out on the last rep.
>>>
>>>Are you ASSuming that because I'm a girl, "toning" must be my only
>>>frame of reference? If so, you're quite mistaken.
>>
>> The tone of this thread is deteriorating!
>
>Not only is it deteriorating, it doesn't make a thread of sense
>

Both the tone and content were apparently threadbare then?

David
September 13th 06, 10:17 AM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:56:39 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 12 Sep 2006 19:42:34 -0700, "geek_girl" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jim wrote:
>>>>> "geek_girl" > wrote in
>>>>> ps.com:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> And people would never deny anthropogenic global warming just
>>>>> >> because
>>>>> >> they like big cars, or cancer risks just because they like smoking?
>>>>> >> That's all I'm getting at. Several people denounced the study right
>>>>> >> off the bat without even reading it.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > How do you know they didn't read it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Knowledge of human nature and those initial brief replies - see first
>>>>> posts. It looks like I was the first one who checked out the original
>>>>> article.
>>>>
>>>>I see. Just because the replies were brief, they didn't read the
>>>>studies?
>>>>
>>>>> A lot of people won't even read a report because they're
>>>>> bombarded with so much noise. The "dueling studies" phenomenon doesn't
>>>>> mean each one isn't worth a look.
>>>>
>>>>Oh my, aren't you condescending?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Well, this is assuming that heavy lifting really is "hard on the
>>>>> > eyes". In either case, does this mean you're withdrawing your
>>>>> > apparent
>>>>> > blanket assertion that "hard labor" isn't the same as lifting
>>>>> > weights?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a certain concentrated stress on the body that I personally
>>>>> have
>>>>> only experienced with weights. We could debate the fine points
>>>>> endlessly
>>>>> I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>It's not a "fine point". Lifting heavy things is lifting heavy things.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > I was simply addressing your statement that the stresses of lifting
>>>>> > weights are not "natural". It's likely that although lifting weights
>>>>> > is contrived, the stresses are quite similar to those under which we
>>>>> > evolved. Who knows, maybe it's "natural" for people to eventually
>>>>> > develop glaucoma.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can name a specific labor activity that matches the
>>>>> concentrated
>>>>> eye-popping feel of final reps, please do!
>>>>
>>>>How about lifting huge hunks of iron? Have you ever been to a carnival?
>>>>Do you know how the rides get put together and taken apart?
>>>>
>>>>> I helped move pianos and even
>>>>> vending machines up/down flights of stairs.
>>>>
>>>>You *helped* move them. You didn't move them single-handedly, did you?
>>>>
>>>>> It was mostly a challenge to
>>>>> protect the lower back. I never felt like my eyes were bulging. Again,
>>>>> I'm referring to heavy weights, not "toning" exercises where you don't
>>>>> burn out on the last rep.
>>>>
>>>>Are you ASSuming that because I'm a girl, "toning" must be my only
>>>>frame of reference? If so, you're quite mistaken.
>>>
>>> The tone of this thread is deteriorating!
>>
>>Not only is it deteriorating, it doesn't make a thread of sense
>>
>
> Both the tone and content were apparently threadbare then?

Yes and I also believe this 'lady' should atone for her tone.

ATP*
September 13th 06, 11:55 AM
"JMW" > wrote in message
...
> Jim > wrote:
>
>>Shute > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>>>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>>>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>>>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>>>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>>>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>>>
>>> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
>>> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
>>> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
>>> really give you a good workout.
>>
>>Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
>>stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
>>like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
>>etc.)
>>
>>When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
>>attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
>>groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
>
> Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
> OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.

I think you're all ganging up on this guy for no good reason. I've done all
kinds of manual labor and I agree there are few instances where repeated max
lifts are required. Such a condition would be completely unsafe. There would
be a lot more workers running around missing toes or other appendages. One
of the few exceptions would be pushing objects or vehicles, where the
workers are not in harm's way. That kind of work is usually done with
forklifts, skid steers or tractors these days, unless someone wants to show
off.

Hobbes
September 13th 06, 01:17 PM
In article >,
The Real Bev > wrote:

> geek_girl wrote:
>
> > Jim wrote:
> >> Jim Chinnis > wrote:
> >> > wrote in part:
> >> >
> >> >>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
> >> >
> >> > Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
> >>
> >> Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to their
> >> own recreation.
> >
> > It's not at all upsetting, because at this point it seems like no more
> > than speculation. In any case, most of us (us being the longtime
> > lifters in mfw) have accepted that there are risks to heavy lifting,
> > but we feel that the benefits outweigh the risks.
>
> I was taught to breathe out while lifting and in while dropping. Nobody
> ever mentioned holding one's breath except to say "Don't do it."

Every olympic weightlifter and powerlifter holds their breath during
various phases of the competition lift. You can't stabilize your spine
any other way. None of them are dropping dead on the platform.

--
Keith

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 02:09 PM
ATP* wrote:
> "JMW" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jim > wrote:
> >
> >>Shute > wrote in
> :
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
> >>>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
> >>>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
> >>>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
> >>>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
> >>>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
> >>>
> >>> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
> >>> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
> >>> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
> >>> really give you a good workout.
> >>
> >>Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
> >>stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
> >>like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
> >>etc.)
> >>
> >>When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
> >>attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
> >>groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
> >
> > Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
> > OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.
>
> I think you're all ganging up on this guy for no good reason. I've done all
> kinds of manual labor and I agree there are few instances where repeated max
> lifts are required.

Well, for one thing, he's not describing a max lift. He's describing a
sloppy supramaximal bench press. Also, IME there are many kinds of
manual labor where repeated maximal/near maxima lifts are required.
However, that's not the issue here. The issue isn't maximal lifts; it's
whether or not you're Valsalva'ing. Do you only Valsalva on max lifts?
I Valsalva with every squat and deadlift, regardless of weight. I
Valsalva'ed every time I hoisted a heavy tray onto my shoulder too.

> Such a condition would be completely unsafe. There would
> be a lot more workers running around missing toes or other appendages. One
> of the few exceptions would be pushing objects or vehicles, where the
> workers are not in harm's way. That kind of work is usually done with
> forklifts, skid steers or tractors these days, unless someone wants to show
> off.

But there are plenty of workers working in what you might call unsafe
conditions, in jobs where it's not practical or not affordable to have
equipment or extra people to help with the heavy lifting.

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 03:38 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "geek_girl" wrote
> >
> > JMW wrote:
> >> Jim > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Shute > wrote in
> >> :
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
> >> >>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
> >> >>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
> >> >>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
> >> >>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
> >> >>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
> >> >>
> >> >> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
> >> >> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
> >> >> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
> >> >> really give you a good workout.
> >> >
> >> >Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
> >> >stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
> >> >like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
> >> >etc.)
> >> >
> >> >When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific,
> >> >targeted
> >> >attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many
> >> >muscle
> >> >groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
> >>
> >> Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
> >> OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.
> >
> > It all makes perfect sense now, doesn't it? Maybe if he'd stop bouncing
> > the bar off his chest his eyes would stop bugging out.
> >
> Maybe the reason his eyes keep bugging out has to do with being an internet
> dumbass. I understand this condition can be quite stressful.

Hmm. I'm not personally familiar with that condition. Perhaps we should
ask 'CHARLES' about it.

JMW
September 13th 06, 05:58 PM
"ATP*" > wrote:
>"JMW" > wrote:
>> Jim > wrote:
>>>Shute > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>>>>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>>>>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>>>>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>>>>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>>>>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>>>>
>>>> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
>>>> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
>>>> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
>>>> really give you a good workout.
>>>
>>>Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
>>>stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
>>>like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
>>>etc.)
>>>
>>>When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
>>>attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
>>>groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
>>
>> Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
>> OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.
>
>I think you're all ganging up on this guy for no good reason. I've done all
>kinds of manual labor and I agree there are few instances where repeated max
>lifts are required. Such a condition would be completely unsafe. There would
>be a lot more workers running around missing toes or other appendages. One
>of the few exceptions would be pushing objects or vehicles, where the
>workers are not in harm's way. That kind of work is usually done with
>forklifts, skid steers or tractors these days, unless someone wants to show
>off.

I think you're missing the point. Many, if not most, people, in the
course of moderate-to-heavy lifting, will perform a brief Valsalva
maneuver during the point of heaviest exertion. It's so automatic
that most people don't even notice that they're doing it.
Nevertheless, it happens. If you read the article he posted, you
would see that he is referring to that particular aspect of
weightlifting.

Go stack a few bales of straw and see if you don't do the same thing.

Charles
September 13th 06, 06:17 PM
On 13 Sep 2006 07:38:16 -0700, "geek_girl" >
wrote:

>
>Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "geek_girl" wrote
>> >
>> > JMW wrote:
>> >> Jim > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Shute > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>> >> >>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>> >> >>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>> >> >>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>> >> >>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>> >> >>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
>> >> >> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
>> >> >> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
>> >> >> really give you a good workout.
>> >> >
>> >> >Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
>> >> >stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
>> >> >like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
>> >> >etc.)
>> >> >
>> >> >When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific,
>> >> >targeted
>> >> >attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many
>> >> >muscle
>> >> >groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
>> >>
>> >> Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
>> >> OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.
>> >
>> > It all makes perfect sense now, doesn't it? Maybe if he'd stop bouncing
>> > the bar off his chest his eyes would stop bugging out.
>> >
>> Maybe the reason his eyes keep bugging out has to do with being an internet
>> dumbass. I understand this condition can be quite stressful.
>
>Hmm. I'm not personally familiar with that condition. Perhaps we should
>ask 'CHARLES' about it.

Of course Sarah darling, I'm always only too pleased to offer expert
opinion in those areas where I have specialist knowledge.

It is confirmed that Lee will be suffering from "that condition" and
you also may have fallen victim to "that condition". It is a
well-known symptom of "that condition" that not every "internet
dumbass" is aware of their affliction, and will continue to make
pratts of themselves completely and blissfully unaware!

I do hope that helps; don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any
further help on this or any other topic.

As ever... ;o)

Stephen N.
September 13th 06, 06:44 PM
JMW wrote:
> I think you're missing the point. Many, if not most, people, in the
> course of moderate-to-heavy lifting, will perform a brief Valsalva
> maneuver during the point of heaviest exertion. It's so automatic
> that most people don't even notice that they're doing it.
> Nevertheless, it happens. If you read the article he posted, you
> would see that he is referring to that particular aspect of
> weightlifting.
>
> Go stack a few bales of straw and see if you don't do the same thing.

And check out the pipes on those farm kids and tell me that it ain't
exercise. Maybe arm wrestle one for your paycheck.

Stepehn N.--->guarantee yer eyes'll pop out...

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 06:54 PM
JMW wrote:

> I think you're missing the point. Many, if not most, people, in the
> course of moderate-to-heavy lifting, will perform a brief Valsalva
> maneuver during the point of heaviest exertion.

I'm starting a campaign to make "Valsalva" a verb. It's easier to type
that way.

"Many, if not most, people, in the course of moderate-to-heavy lifting,
will perform a brief Valsalva
maneuver..."

"Many, if not most, people, in the course of moderate-to-heavy lifting,
will briefly Valsalva..."

See how much shorter that is? You with me?

Stephen N.
September 13th 06, 07:27 PM
geek_girl wrote:
> I'm starting a campaign to make "Valsalva" a verb. It's easier to type
> that way.

> "Many, if not most, people, in the course of moderate-to-heavy lifting,
> will briefly Valsalva..."
>
> See how much shorter that is? You with me?

I'm with ya, try Valsalvate. Then you could also drop the capital and
use it as valsalvation as in, "valsavation can occur while pitching hay
bales", or "holy valsalvation, Batman!"

Wouldn't be the first time slaughtered English made it to the OED.

Stephen N.---> Doh!

geek_girl
September 13th 06, 07:58 PM
Stephen N. wrote:
> geek_girl wrote:
> > I'm starting a campaign to make "Valsalva" a verb. It's easier to type
> > that way.
>
> > "Many, if not most, people, in the course of moderate-to-heavy lifting,
> > will briefly Valsalva..."
> >
> > See how much shorter that is? You with me?
>
> I'm with ya, try Valsalvate. Then you could also drop the capital and
> use it as valsalvation as in, "valsavation can occur while pitching hay
> bales", or "holy valsalvation, Batman!"
>
> Wouldn't be the first time slaughtered English made it to the OED.
>
> Stephen N.---> Doh!

Ooh, I like it! And if one should happen to spit a bit on the exhale,
it could be called "valsalivation".

JMW
September 14th 06, 01:31 AM
"geek_girl" > wrote:

>JMW wrote:
>
>> I think you're missing the point. Many, if not most, people, in the
>> course of moderate-to-heavy lifting, will perform a brief Valsalva
>> maneuver during the point of heaviest exertion.
>
>I'm starting a campaign to make "Valsalva" a verb. It's easier to type
>that way.
>
>"Many, if not most, people, in the course of moderate-to-heavy lifting,
>will perform a brief Valsalva
>maneuver..."
>
>"Many, if not most, people, in the course of moderate-to-heavy lifting,
>will briefly Valsalva..."
>
>See how much shorter that is? You with me?

I dunno. Most folks will probably think it involves genitals.

Jason Earl
September 14th 06, 01:52 AM
JMW > writes:

> "geek_girl" > wrote:
>
>>JMW wrote:
>>
>>> I think you're missing the point. Many, if not most, people, in the
>>> course of moderate-to-heavy lifting, will perform a brief Valsalva
>>> maneuver during the point of heaviest exertion.
>>
>>I'm starting a campaign to make "Valsalva" a verb. It's easier to type
>>that way.
>>
>>"Many, if not most, people, in the course of moderate-to-heavy lifting,
>>will perform a brief Valsalva
>>maneuver..."
>>
>>"Many, if not most, people, in the course of moderate-to-heavy lifting,
>>will briefly Valsalva..."
>>
>>See how much shorter that is? You with me?
>
> I dunno. Most folks will probably think it involves genitals.

How is that a bad thing? Perhaps we can interest more people in
learning to deadlift...

Jason

John Hanson
September 14th 06, 04:46 AM
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:19:26 -0000, Jim > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>Shute > wrote in
:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>>
>>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>>
>> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
>> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
>> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
>> really give you a good workout.

I was carrying bundles of roofing up a ladder when I was 12 years old.
I was carrying up two bundles at a time by the time I was 14. It's
not that tough.

>
>Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
>stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
>like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
>etc.)
>
I don't believe I've ever had that feeling while benching.

>When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
>attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
>groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
>
I blow the blood vessels in my eyes on occasion while squatting heavy
but I've never done that due to muscle exhaustion. It's always
happened while doing singles with close to 500 pounds or more. My
muscles never get exhausted when I do singles, no matter how much
weight is on the bar. But, when I do reps and my muscles do reach
some point of exhaustion, I still have no where near the tension in my
body as I do while doing a heavy single. It's probably due to being
exhausted at that point.

jimmy
September 15th 06, 03:27 AM
trumpet is brass, not woodwind

Jim wrote:
> Jim Chinnis > wrote in
> :
>
> > wrote in part:
> >
> >>Study finds weightlifting link to glaucoma
> >
> > Not much of a study. Looks like nonsense at this point.
>
> Well, people don't like to hear anything upsetting if it applies to their
> own recreation. The concept seems reasonable enough to me, since the "eye-
> popping" effect is easy to feel. Weightlifting (vs. "hard labor" or body-
> weight exercises) may not be natural for the human system. Farm work used
> to keep the populace in shape and it rarely involved the peak stresses of
> weight training.
>
> The study's emphasis is that people predisposed to glaucoma could increase
> their risk. They cite a known correlation between "normal-tension
> glaucoma" and the playing of "high-resistance" wind instruments. It all
> stands to reason.
>
> They need to follow up and track the incidence of glaucoma among the
> weightlifting population. If the study seems superficial on news sites,
> here are the details:
>
> http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/124/9/1251
>
> Jim

Stu
September 15th 06, 04:47 AM
jimmy wrote:
> trumpet is brass, not woodwind

And OP said wind, not woodwind. Brass and woodwind collectively belong
to the group of wind instruments. And I've read of this "known
correlation" before on a trumpet mailing list (TPIN) - ie, re glaucoma
and trumpet playing.



> > > wrote in part:

> > The study's emphasis is that people predisposed to glaucoma could increase
> > their risk. They cite a known correlation between "normal-tension
> > glaucoma" and the playing of "high-resistance" wind instruments. It all
> > stands to reason.

Lucas Buck
September 25th 06, 10:46 PM
On 13 Sep 2006 06:09:33 -0700, "geek_girl" > wrote:

>ATP* wrote:
>> "JMW" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Jim > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Shute > wrote in
>> :
>> >>
>> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>> >>>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>> >>>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>> >>>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>> >>>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>> >>>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>> >>>
>> >>> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
>> >>> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
>> >>> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
>> >>> really give you a good workout.
>> >>
>> >>Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
>> >>stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
>> >>like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
>> >>etc.)
>> >>
>> >>When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
>> >>attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
>> >>groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
>> >
>> > Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
>> > OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.
>>
>> I think you're all ganging up on this guy for no good reason. I've done all
>> kinds of manual labor and I agree there are few instances where repeated max
>> lifts are required.
>
>Well, for one thing, he's not describing a max lift. He's describing a
>sloppy supramaximal bench press. Also, IME there are many kinds of
>manual labor where repeated maximal/near maxima lifts are required.
>However, that's not the issue here. The issue isn't maximal lifts; it's
>whether or not you're Valsalva'ing. Do you only Valsalva on max lifts?
>I Valsalva with every squat and deadlift, regardless of weight. I
>Valsalva'ed every time I hoisted a heavy tray onto my shoulder too.

Careful - he probably thinks "Valsalva'ing" means applying some sort of personal lubricant.



Not that there's anything wrong with that, in proper context.

Lucas Buck
September 25th 06, 10:48 PM
On 12 Sep 2006 18:50:58 -0700, "geek_girl" > wrote:

>Shute wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2006 12:11:46 -0700, "geek_girl" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Also, farm work isn't the only thing that "used to keep the populace in
>> >shape". Not everyone was a farmer, and there were (and still are, to
>> >some degree) a lot of jobs involving heavy lifting.
>>
>> Try swinging around an ancient battle sword. Or firing a long bow at
>> the same rate required in battle. Or even cutting wood to heat the
>> house. Or starting a crank start car. Or mowing a lawn with a
>> powerless cutter. Or pushing a wheelbarrow round the yard.
>>
>
>Try hauling landscaping rocks and decomposed granite around the yard
>*without* a wheelbarrow. :)

If granite is decomposing in your yard, I think that lifting injury should be the LEAST of your
health concerns.

geek_girl
September 26th 06, 08:35 PM
Lucas Buck wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2006 18:50:58 -0700, "geek_girl" > wrote:
>
> >Shute wrote:
> >> On 12 Sep 2006 12:11:46 -0700, "geek_girl" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Also, farm work isn't the only thing that "used to keep the populace in
> >> >shape". Not everyone was a farmer, and there were (and still are, to
> >> >some degree) a lot of jobs involving heavy lifting.
> >>
> >> Try swinging around an ancient battle sword. Or firing a long bow at
> >> the same rate required in battle. Or even cutting wood to heat the
> >> house. Or starting a crank start car. Or mowing a lawn with a
> >> powerless cutter. Or pushing a wheelbarrow round the yard.
> >>
> >
> >Try hauling landscaping rocks and decomposed granite around the yard
> >*without* a wheelbarrow. :)
>
> If granite is decomposing in your yard, I think that lifting injury should be the LEAST of your
> health concerns.

Everything decomposes here. Must be the heat.

geek_girl
September 26th 06, 08:37 PM
Lucas Buck wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 06:09:33 -0700, "geek_girl" > wrote:
>
> >ATP* wrote:
> >> "JMW" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Jim > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Shute > wrote in
> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
> >> >>>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
> >> >>>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
> >> >>>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
> >> >>>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
> >> >>>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
> >> >>> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
> >> >>> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
> >> >>> really give you a good workout.
> >> >>
> >> >>Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
> >> >>stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
> >> >>like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
> >> >>etc.)
> >> >>
> >> >>When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
> >> >>attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
> >> >>groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
> >> >
> >> > Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
> >> > OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.
> >>
> >> I think you're all ganging up on this guy for no good reason. I've done all
> >> kinds of manual labor and I agree there are few instances where repeated max
> >> lifts are required.
> >
> >Well, for one thing, he's not describing a max lift. He's describing a
> >sloppy supramaximal bench press. Also, IME there are many kinds of
> >manual labor where repeated maximal/near maxima lifts are required.
> >However, that's not the issue here. The issue isn't maximal lifts; it's
> >whether or not you're Valsalva'ing. Do you only Valsalva on max lifts?
> >I Valsalva with every squat and deadlift, regardless of weight. I
> >Valsalva'ed every time I hoisted a heavy tray onto my shoulder too.
>
> Careful - he probably thinks "Valsalva'ing" means applying some sort of personal lubricant.
>
>
>
> Not that there's anything wrong with that, in proper context.

Does anybody know who this "Lucas Buck" guy is? I think he's harassing
me. I want his real name and address so I can find him and kick his ass.

Charles
September 26th 06, 10:46 PM
On 26 Sep 2006 12:37:08 -0700, "geek_girl" >
wrote:

>
>Lucas Buck wrote:
>> On 13 Sep 2006 06:09:33 -0700, "geek_girl" > wrote:
>>
>> >ATP* wrote:
>> >> "JMW" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Jim > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Shute > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>> >> >>>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>> >> >>>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>> >> >>>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>> >> >>>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>> >> >>>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
>> >> >>> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
>> >> >>> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
>> >> >>> really give you a good workout.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
>> >> >>stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
>> >> >>like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
>> >> >>etc.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
>> >> >>attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
>> >> >>groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
>> >> > OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.
>> >>
>> >> I think you're all ganging up on this guy for no good reason. I've done all
>> >> kinds of manual labor and I agree there are few instances where repeated max
>> >> lifts are required.
>> >
>> >Well, for one thing, he's not describing a max lift. He's describing a
>> >sloppy supramaximal bench press. Also, IME there are many kinds of
>> >manual labor where repeated maximal/near maxima lifts are required.
>> >However, that's not the issue here. The issue isn't maximal lifts; it's
>> >whether or not you're Valsalva'ing. Do you only Valsalva on max lifts?
>> >I Valsalva with every squat and deadlift, regardless of weight. I
>> >Valsalva'ed every time I hoisted a heavy tray onto my shoulder too.
>>
>> Careful - he probably thinks "Valsalva'ing" means applying some sort of personal lubricant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not that there's anything wrong with that, in proper context.
>
>Does anybody know who this "Lucas Buck" guy is? I think he's harassing
>me. I want his real name and address so I can find him and kick his ass.

Ask Wendy, she's had some experience of being harassed by "Lucas Buck"
Sarah! ;o)

Lucas Buck
September 27th 06, 06:46 PM
On 26 Sep 2006 12:37:08 -0700, "geek_girl" > wrote:

>
>Lucas Buck wrote:
>> On 13 Sep 2006 06:09:33 -0700, "geek_girl" > wrote:
>>
>> >ATP* wrote:
>> >> "JMW" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Jim > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Shute > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:57 -0000, Jim > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>I worked for two moving companies when younger, and it's still not the
>> >> >>>>_extreme_ "bulging" pressure you experience when doing the final few
>> >> >>>>reps in a set, assuming you're lifting heavy weight with lower reps.
>> >> >>>>Heavy work tends to focus the pressure over more of the body vs. a
>> >> >>>>specific muscle group. There are degrees of manual labor. Some of it
>> >> >>>>could certainly be hard on the eyes too.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Moving isn't that bad. You have dolly's and things like that to use.
>> >> >>> Plus a lot of the time is spent resting while driving back and forth.
>> >> >>> Try roofing a house or something. Carrying shingles up a ladder will
>> >> >>> really give you a good workout.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Agreed. But even hod carrying is mostly a legs thing, as long as you can
>> >> >>stabilize your back. It's much different than lying on a bench, feeling
>> >> >>like you may be crushed if you can't hoist the bar (neck veins popping,
>> >> >>etc.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>When I said weightlifting isn't natural, I meant that a specific, targeted
>> >> >>attack on muscle groups is not the normal "labor" experience. Many muscle
>> >> >>groups are assisting and the type of exhaustion is just different.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah. Now we understand. You don't know much about heavy manual labor
>> >> > OR weightlifting. Thanks for clarifying, Jim.
>> >>
>> >> I think you're all ganging up on this guy for no good reason. I've done all
>> >> kinds of manual labor and I agree there are few instances where repeated max
>> >> lifts are required.
>> >
>> >Well, for one thing, he's not describing a max lift. He's describing a
>> >sloppy supramaximal bench press. Also, IME there are many kinds of
>> >manual labor where repeated maximal/near maxima lifts are required.
>> >However, that's not the issue here. The issue isn't maximal lifts; it's
>> >whether or not you're Valsalva'ing. Do you only Valsalva on max lifts?
>> >I Valsalva with every squat and deadlift, regardless of weight. I
>> >Valsalva'ed every time I hoisted a heavy tray onto my shoulder too.
>>
>> Careful - he probably thinks "Valsalva'ing" means applying some sort of personal lubricant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not that there's anything wrong with that, in proper context.
>
>Does anybody know who this "Lucas Buck" guy is? I think he's harassing
>me. I want his real name and address so I can find him and kick his ass.

See? I just KNEW she was into me!!!